Quotes From Judges Who Aren't Swayed By Flimsy RIAA 'Evidence'

from the nice-list dept

Ray Beckermann has compiled a nice list of quotes from judges who don't buy into the RIAA's flimsy evidence. It makes for good reading. Here are just a few of the quotes, though you can read them all at Ray's site:

"[W]hen plaintiffs dismissed their claims in June 2007, they apparently had no more material evidence to support their claims than they did when they first contacted defendant in February 2005.....Whatever plaintiffs' reasons for the manner in which they have prosecuted this case, it does not appear to be justified as a reasonable exploration of the boundaries of copyright law....."
-Hon. Donald C. Ashmanskas

"[N]either the parties' submissions nor the Court's own research has revealed any case holding the mere owner of an internet account contributorily or vicariously liable for the infringing activities of third persons.....In addition to the weakness of the secondary copyright infringement claims against Ms. Foster, there is a question of the plaintiffs' motivations in pursuing them..... [T]here is an appearance that the plaintiffs initiated the secondary infringement claims to press Ms. Foster into settlement after they had ceased to believe she was a direct or "primary" infringer."
-Hon. Lee R. West

"Plaintiff ... must present at least some facts to show the plausibility of their allegations of copyright infringement.... However, other than the bare conclusory statement that on "information and belief" Defendant has downloaded, distributed and/or made available for distribution to the public copyrighted works, Plaintiffs have presented no facts that would indicate that this allegation is anything more than speculation. The complaint is simply a boilerplate listing of the elements of copyright infringement without any facts pertaining specifically to the instant Defendant. The Court therefore finds that the complaint fails to sufficiently state a claim upon which relief can be granted...."
-Hon. Rudi M. Brewster

When the RIAA first chose to go down its legal path, many people simply assumed that judges would roll over and accept whatever "evidence" the RIAA came up with -- no matter how flimsy. The fact that judges are pushing back and questioning many of the RIAA's claims is good to see. If the RIAA has real evidence against people, that's one thing. However, so many of these cases are filed with incorrect or incomplete evidence, and the people accused are pushed very hard to simply settle rather than fight. It's good to see judges demanding actual evidence be presented.

Lawyer's Liability for Client's Baseless Claim

N.J. Supreme Court to Take Up Issue of Lawyer's Liability for Client's Baseless Claim

"The New Jersey Supreme Court has agreed to review a case that could determine whether a lawyer is liable for furthering a client's illegitimate purpose in pursuing litigation."

A lower New Jersey court had ruled that even if a lawyer knew his client was moved by an improper purpose in filing a lawsuit, he could not be held liable unless he was pursuing an illegitimate purpose of his own (as opposed to furthering the client's illegitimate purpose).

On top of it all, the lawyer's former client was defending an action for malicious process on the grounds that he'd relied on the lawyer's advice in suing. Since this was the same lawyer who was disclaiming all responsibility for the results of the advice, the overall effect might be seen as that of a shell game in which responsibility for the wrongful lawsuit was to be found under whichever walnut shell -- attorney or client -- wasn't being lifted for inspection.